myblog | Elisenda Torras | Activity

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:51:54 +0000

ARP: PresentationThis blog post includes my presentation slides. Thank you! Presentation_v2Download

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:51:35 +0000

ARP 5: ReflectionWhen I […] “ARP 5: Reflection”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:51:01 +0000

ARP 4: Analysis and ConclusionsIn my earlier posts, I framed this project as a response to a quiet but persistent tension: creative education often celebrates radical self-expression, yet that same freedom can produce discomfort, disconnection, and unspoken questions about boundaries and belonging. I also described why I chose a small exploratory design (focus group plus two asynchronous follow-up interviews), precisely because this topic can be hard to voice publicly. What follows is what my primary data genuinely shows, including where it did not show what I initially expected. It surfaced clear patterns, but also challenged my initial expectation. Three themes emerged: Theme 1: Dress gets ‘decoded’ fast, and the decoding is rarely neutral Theme 2: ‘Anything goes’ is more myth than reality, and context quietly governs what feels acceptable Theme 3: Faith and modesty showed up more through silence, self-monitoring, and sanction imaginaries than through open debate Thematic AnalysisDownload 1) Dress gets “decoded” fast, and the decoding is rarely neutral Although I used AI-generated outfit stimuli to reduce personal exposure and keep discussion on clothing features to start with, the focus group quickly demonstrated how dress becomes a shortcut for reading identity, values, and “type of person.” The first Miro activity made this visible: participants added in the Words Walls that moved rapidly beyond description into social inference. Across the four outfits, participants attached not only aesthetic labels (“minimalist”, “loud”, “DIY”, “layered”) but also moral and cultural scripts. Outfit 2, in particular, attracted high-intensity narratives (“attention-seeking”, “unapologetic”, “unapproachable”, “cold”), while Outfit 3 was repeatedly positioned as “approachable”, “blending in”, “has a job”, “sorted”. This matters because it shows how inclusion issues can begin long before anyone speaks: the atmosphere of a room is partly shaped by the silent interpretations people are already making about each other’s bodies and clothing. One focus group moment captured this reflexive awareness clearly. When discussing discomfort, a participant reframed it as a mirror, not a verdict: “My take on me feeling uneasy about something … it says something about me, rather than them. … I shouldn’t just judge people by their clothes.” (P2, focus group) That comment does not erase the existence of discomfort, but it shows a key dynamic: students often manage tension by turning judgement inward, trying to be “a good inclusive subject,” even when the reaction is real. 2) “Anything goes” is more myth than reality, and context quietly governs what feels acceptable A strong pattern across the discussion was not a simple permissive culture, but contextual permission. Several participants argued that the same outfit reads differently depending on institutional setting, audience, and expectations of professionalism. One participant contrasted “fashion school normality” with other university environments: “It’s very normal in fashion school to wear something like that. But then if you were in a business school, it would be seen as more like a big statement, because in business school I think people come from more conservative backgrounds.” (P2, focus group) Others described how visible political messaging or high-exposure styling can become read as disruptive depending on space, even if that disruption is not the wearer’s intent. The “decoded outfit” maps reinforced this: Outfit 1 (with visible text) was largely placed as socially/culturally coherent and symbolic, while Outfit 2 was clustered as disruptive and culturally ambiguous, suggesting that participants felt more unsure about how to interpret it and how it would land on others. This tension sharpened when the group moved from “would it bother you?” to “should there be boundaries?” Several participants did not demand restrictions, but they did invoke the idea of shared norms and mutual responsibility. This is a crucial finding for my research question: creative freedom does not remove norms, it relocates them into the implicit, the contextual, and the emotionally negotiated. That is exactly where faith and modesty tensions can become invisible but powerful. 3) Faith and modesty showed up more through silence, self-monitoring, and escalation routes than through open debate Here is the honest part: in the focus group, faith and modesty were not discussed as explicitly or as centrally as my framing might predict. The most visible “faith/modesty” element in the group data was indirect: the way participants placed outfits on the intent map (for example, Outfit 3 was consistently positioned toward “consideration” and “private/modest,” while Outfit 2 was placed toward “self-expressive” and “visible”). But the group’s verbal conversation was dominated by general inclusion language (avoid judging, be respectful, context matters), rather than sustained engagement with religious modesty as lived practice. So, in what ways do dress, faith, and modesty intersect at UAL-like creative environments? They intersect through interpretation: students and staff do not just “see outfits,” they read them as signals of identity, politics, sexuality, class, morality, and social intent, often at speed and with high confidence. That interpretive layer shapes who feels safe to participate. They intersect through the difficulty of naming discomfort: the focus group leaned toward “I shouldn’t judge” and “it depends on context,” while the interviews revealed more direct boundary language. The method itself demonstrates how careful and constrained these conversations can be in public settings. My data suggests that surfacing can help, but only if it is scaffolded. The Miro mapping worked because it externalised reactions (words, assumptions, comfort ratings) and gave participants something to point at. But it also revealed a risk: when you invite people to name assumptions, you will surface stereotypes. I don’t see this as a failure, but as the material of the problem […] “ARP 4: Analysis and Conclusions”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:50:40 +0000

ARP 3: Research Design and Data CollectionBy the time I reached the data collection phase of the research, I had already gathered a great deal of insight from my literature review and critical reflections, but I knew that what I was looking for couldn’t be found in texts alone. I wanted to surface unspoken discomforts, unheard perspectives, and lived tensions around dress, modesty, and belonging in creative HE spaces. To do this, I designed a small, exploratory qualitative study combining a focus group with two asynchronous individual interviews. This research was never about generalising. Instead, it was about making space for the subtle, emotional, and sometimes contradictory experiences that arise in classrooms where radical self-expression and religious/cultural modesty coexist, sometimes harmoniously, sometimes not. RESEARCH DESIGN AND APPROACH I adopted a qualitative, interpretivist approach rooted in the belief that knowledge is co-constructed, especially when working with embodied and culturally situated issues such as dress and identity. Inspired by reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021), I allowed themes to emerge through iterative engagement with the data, rather than imposing a rigid framework from the outset. Methodologically, this took shape through one focus group, followed by two asynchronous individual interviews with participants from that same group. I added the interviews deliberately, not as an “extra”, but as a way to extend care and create a different kind of space: slower, more private, and less shaped by group dynamics. The intention was to give participants the opportunity to share anything they may have felt hesitant to voice in the moment, and to do so individually and anonymously, at their own pace. Interestingly, it was the move into asynchronous, one-to-one reflection that most clearly confirmed the sensitivity of this topic. What emerged in those follow-up responses was not simply “more data”, but a clearer sense of how challenging it can feel to name discomfort around dress, faith, and perceived respect within a culture of inclusivity. In that sense, the method became part of the finding: the need for anonymity and time was itself evidence of how carefully these conversations are currently held, and how easily they can be silenced. DATA COLLECTION Focus Group: Tabling the Conversation The focus group brought together CSM MA level students from a mix of cultural and religious backgrounds, including those who identified as believers, agnostic, and non-religious. We explored a set of AI-generated outfit images designed to open up reflection across a broad spectrum, from bold, revealing looks to more modest, covered styles. On Creating the Outfit Stimuli for the Focus Group For this stage of the project, I chose not to use photographs of real students. Instead, I generated four outfit images using AI, drawing on multiple visual references that I input to produce variation in silhouette, coverage, texture, colour, and styling detail. The aim was not to create “representative” students, but to produce non-identifiable visual stimuli that could be discussed more safely. This decision was shaped by ethics and pedagogy. Because the project explores how dress can trigger feelings of comfort, discomfort, neutrality, or belonging in shared creative learning spaces, using real students risked shifting attention from the outfit to the person, and inviting judgements or assumptions about identity, even with consent. AI helped keep the focus on observable features of dress while reducing the risk of personal exposure. Using AI also supported methodological clarity. I designed the four outfits to differ across visually verifiable variables, including coverage, opacity, layering, silhouette volume, and the presence or absence of text or graphics. This created a more consistent basis for discussion and helped me separate description from interpretation when analysing participant responses. Below, I present a short, objective description of the four outfits, alongside a comparison table focusing exclusively on observable variables. The descriptions intentionally avoid interpretation or value judgement, establishing a neutral baseline for later analysis. I also include screenshots documenting the process of using ChatGPT to generate and refine the outfit stimuli from multiple visual references, to make the image-production method transparent. Visual StimuliDownload Here is the Miro board I used during the focus group. I’ve broken it down into sections and shared as screenshots to improve readability. Miro BoardDownload Below I include my moderator notes, the session transcript and the participant consent forms links: Focus Group Moderation Notes Focus Group Transcript Participant Consent Forms 2. Asynchronous Individual Interviews: Listening More Closely After the focus group, I invited participants to share further reflections through asynchronous individual interviews, mainly to reduce the social pressure of speaking “in the room” and to offer a quieter, more anonymous space for anything that felt too delicate, unfinished, or hard to phrase publicly. What these follow-ups gave me was a slightly different register of insight: participants wrote more openly about how personal style can feel, and how real the fear of “unintentionally offending someone” can be when commenting on clothes tied to identity. One participant described the experience as unexpectedly introspective, noticing how quickly we attach cultural connotations to colours, accessories, and silhouettes, and how they “struggled” to express their perceptions while still respecting the intent behind someone’s style. Another reflected on context and behaviour as shaping interpretation, and noted the group’s hesitation to voice anything that might sound negative, suggesting that more time and probing could have surfaced richer disagreement. Collectively, these interviews didn’t just add detail; they confirmed the sensitivity of the topic and the careful self-monitoring it can evoke. Here are the interview transcripts References Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publi […] “ARP 3: Research Design and Data Collection”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:50:20 +0000

ARP 2: Context and Rational Th […] “ARP 2: Context and Rational”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:49:48 +0000

ARP 1: Research QuestionMy name is Elisenda, and […] “”

Elisenda Torras posted a new activity comment

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 07:09:34 +0000

This is such a courageous and critically engaged post. I really appreciate how you navigate the complexity of discussing race as a white educator without retreating into defensiveness or colour-blindness. I was particularly struck by your point about the risk of interventions reinforcing stereotypes if not handled with care, this tension feels so…Read more

In reply to - Maria Thelin wrote a new post on the site Maria's blog Blog Post 3 – Race“Talking about racial inequality is a difficult subject for many in the white-dominated field of education” (Leonardo, 2004 in Bradbury, 202 [ […]

Elisenda Torras posted a new activity comment

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 07:08:17 +0000

This is such an exciting and thoughtfully developed intervention. Your proposal bridges so many layers: language, neurodiversity, and cultural capital, with a strong sense of play and accessibility. I especially appreciate how you’ve positioned the glossary as both a learning tool and a community builder. The use of visual and audio elements,…Read more

In reply to - Maria Thelin wrote a new post on the site Maria's blog Intervention ProposalBackground In Bespoke Tailoring there is a lot of specialist vocabulary, from the names of tools and materials to parts of garments and […]

Elisenda Torras posted a new activity comment

Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:20:01 +0000

This is such a thoughtful and well-considered idea. I really like how your proposal balances structure with informality, creating space for connection without making it feel forced. The idea of reciprocal support, where first-years later assist with degree shows, adds a beautiful sense of continuity and mutual investment in the course community.…Read more

In reply to - Claire Undy wrote a new post on the site Claire Undy Intervention DesignI am interested in establishing a student-led mentoring programme within the course I work on- Fine Art Photography at Camberwell. I […]

Elisenda Torras posted a new activity comment

Fri, 16 May 2025 11:41:23 +0000

This is such an important and thought-provoking post. The contrast in disability declarations among Chinese students really highlights how cultural perceptions, stigma, and institutional systems intersect in complex ways. Your point about the burden being on students to self-advocate – especially in a new language and context – I find it so…Read more

In reply to - Claire Undy wrote a new post on the site Claire Undy Blog Post 1 – DisabilityExploring the uptake of disability support amongst international students. Within the BA Fine Art Photography course I work on I take [ […]

Elisenda Torras posted a new activity comment

Fri, 16 May 2025 11:41:20 +0000

I appreciate your awareness of the fine line between respecting students’ privacy and unintentionally reinforcing religion as a taboo topic. At the same time, I wonder if there’s more we can do as educators to gently challenge the dominant secular lens. Perhaps, rather than waiting for students to raise faith-based perspectives, could we create…Read more

In reply to - Claire Undy wrote a new post on the site Claire Undy Blog post 2 – Faith Preventing religion becoming a taboo subject within Fine Art Approaching this task, I found it difficult to think how my role as a […]

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Mon, 12 May 2025 19:12:47 +0000

Reflective Report: Positionality MappingIntroduction This reflective post documents the process of designing an inclusive learning intervention as part of my PgCert journey. Titled Positionality Mapping, the intervention stems from my desire to foster more equitable and critically reflexive collaboration in group work. Positioned within the MA Innovation Management course at UAL, where students work in diverse, interdisciplinary teams, I often witness the tensions that can arise from unspoken assumptions around identity, communication, and authority. Coming from a multicultural and multilingual background, and working across both academia and industry, I am particularly sensitive to how power operates through language, visibility, and assumed norms. I want to challenge the idea of the “neutral” student or collaborator by making space for students to reflect on and articulate how their lived experiences shape their ways of working. This commitment aligns with my broader values of intersectional social justice (Crenshaw, 1991), and with UAL’s strategic objectives to foster inclusive and participatory education. My intervention proposes a structured, two-part activity: first, students will create private positionality maps to reflect on aspects such as cultural background, communication style, access needs, and personal values. Second, they will be invited — but not required — to share selected elements with their peers as part of forming group agreements. I see this as a foundation-setting process that supports mutual understanding, rather than a box-ticking inclusion exercise. This report reflects on the theoretical rationale, ethical considerations, and personal motivations behind the design. It also outlines my intended implementation, anticipated challenges, and next steps for trialling the intervention in the upcoming academic year. Context The intervention is designed for postgraduate students on the MA Innovation Management course, but can be applied to any other course that works with group briefs. In the MAIM course in particular, we bring together students from design, business, social science, and technology backgrounds, many of whom are international, multilingual, and navigating cultural adaptation. Group work is central to our pedagogical approach, and while students are encouraged to collaborate and bring in diverse perspectives, I’ve observed that the processes of forming groups and developing shared values are often left unstructured. Students frequently encounter friction due to differences in working styles, language fluency, confidence in speaking, and expectations around leadership and collaboration. These frictions are not necessarily problematic in themselves — in fact, they can be productive. But without tools to navigate them, they risk reinforcing inequities and marginalising those who don’t conform to dominant norms. The idea for Positionality Mapping emerged from my desire to support students in recognising and valuing these differences from the outset, and to move beyond performative inclusion. It was also influenced by conversations with colleagues during Workshop 2, where we discussed how to create conditions for meaningful peer learning across difference. Feedback from peers highlighted the need for a preparatory stage that allows students to reflect individually before co-creating group norms or group chartres — something that would avoid putting undue pressure on students to disclose sensitive information prematurely. The activity is intended to be implemented within the first week of group project work. Students would complete a guided reflective template (inspired by, but expanding on, a traditional SWOT analysis), and staff would model the practice by sharing their own maps in a limited, voluntary way. This context-specific approach feels aligned with UAL’s inclusive education framework and speaks directly to the access, success, and progression dimensions of the Access and Participation Plan (UAL, 2025). Inclusive Learning: Rationale and Theoretical Grounding My intervention is grounded in inclusive pedagogy that foregrounds lived experience as a site of knowledge (Haraway, 1988; Cuevas, 2020), and is informed by theories of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), anti-racist education (Kishimoto, 2018), and critical reflection (Brookfield, 2017). These frameworks collectively challenge dominant models of teaching and learning by making space for marginalised voices and perspectives. Positionality Mapping supports the idea that knowledge is always situated — shaped by who we are, where we come from, and how we engage with the world. It also speaks to Freire’s (1996) notion of dialogic education, in which learning emerges through reflection and exchange, rather than passive reception. Importantly, this intervention also considers the emotional and ethical dimensions of learning. Inspired by Boler’s (1999) concept of the pedagogy of discomfort, I believe that creating inclusive spaces doesn’t mean avoiding difficulty — rather, it involves building structures that can hold complexity in compassionate and intentional ways. From a policy standpoint, the intervention responds to the UK Equality Act 2010, particularly the duty placed on educators to promote equality and foster good relations across differences. By prompting reflection on individual and collective experiences of power, marginalisation, and belonging, Positionality Mapping becomes a micro-level response to a macro-level structural duty. Reflection on Development The intervention began as a simple idea: a visual map of identity and learning preferences. But through feedback and reflective dialogue with peers and tutors, it evolved into a two-stage process that distinguishes between private and public reflection, and introduces a crucial “pause” — a space between personal awareness and group disclosure. This distinction was a direct result of a tutorial with one of the PgCert tutors, which raised ethical concerns about privacy, vulnerability, and unintended disclosure. The feedback helped me see that even well-intentioned inclusion practices can replicate harm if they are not scaffolded carefully. For example, students from certain faith backgrounds or with invisible disabilities may feel pressure to share beyond their comfort level if we do not provide clear boundaries and alternatives. One key challenge was balancing the depth of reflection I hoped to encourage with the emotional labour it might require. I also questioned whether students would see the value of the task, or whether they might perceive it as abstract or overly “personal.” To address this, I plan to frame the exercise explicitly within the context of group effectiveness — helping students see how positionality influences collaboration, decision-making, and creative dynamics. An additional complexity is managing the diversity within the room — not just in terms of culture or language, but also power, confidence, and educational background. In highly mixed cohorts, there is a risk that students with more familiarity with reflective practice might dominate the process. Mitigating this requires a carefully facilitated structure and multiple modes of engagement (e.g. visual, verbal, anonymous input). Action: Implementation Plan In the upcoming academic year, I intend to pilot the Positionality Mapping intervention during one of the units from the Autumn Term, depending on what feels most appropriate for the rhythm of the academic calendar. The intervention will begin with an individual task and move through a carefully scaffolded process to group interaction. First, I will provide students with a guided worksheet including prompt questions on cultural background, learning needs, working preferences, values, and any access requirements they may wish to reflect on. Filling in this template will be a personal, private task. The aim is to support students in becoming more conscious of how their positionality might shape their engagement in group work. Students will then be asked to review their completed template and consider what, if anything, they are ready to share. They will be explicitly told they are under no obligation to disclose anything — the emphasis will be on mindful, intentional sharing. They are encouraged to reflect on what feels useful or meaningful to communicate with their group, and why. It is expected that each student might choose to share different aspects, and that not everyone will contribute the same type of information. Once students are ready, structured time will be set aside for groups to have a facilitated sharing session. This will be handled with care, using clear ground rules, and with tutor support as needed. This staged, ethical implementation acknowledges the emotional and interpersonal dynamics at play and builds in time for feedback and adjustment. I plan to document insights throughout and share them with the programme team as part of a wider conversation around inclusive group work design. Evaluation and Limitations Although I have not yet implemented the intervention, several potential limitations are already apparent. First, there is the question of emotional safety: even with a clear structure, students may feel uncertain about what is “safe” to share. Offering a two-part structure (private and optional public sharing) aims to address this, but it may not fully resolve the issue for all students. Second, the intervention may require more time than typically allotted in early project sessions. Negotiating time within a busy curriculum is always a challenge, and I will need to collaborate with colleagues to embed this meaningfully rather than as an add-on. Third, measuring the impact of the intervention will require both qualitative and informal approaches. I plan to use anonymous feedback tools such as Padlet to gather student reflections and adapt accordingly. Finally, I am aware that my own biases — particularly around valuing reflection and verbalisation — might shape how I facilitate this. Being mindful of that, and remaining open to feedback, will be key to ensuring the process remains inclusive for all. Conclusion Designing the Positionality Mapping intervention has been a generative process of reflection, theory-building, and dialogue. It has helped me clarify my own commitments to inclusive learning, and foregrounded the ethical responsibility we hold as educators to design with — not just for — our students. The process has also reinforced that inclusion is not a fixed outcome, but a continual practice of listening, adjusting, and co-creating. I don’t expect this intervention to be a perfect solution, but I hope it opens up space for more intentional conversations about who we are when we come together to learn, and what we each need to thrive. Ultimately, Positionality Mapping is not just about understanding identity — it is about making space for the diverse conditions under which learning happens, and recognising that justice in education begins with how we treat each other in the room. References Boler, M. (1999) Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. New York: Routledge. Brookfield, S.D. (2017) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review. Cuevas, A.K. (2020) ‘Positionality as Knowledge: From Pedagogy to Praxis’, PS: Political Science & Politics. Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books. Kishimoto, K. (2018) ‘Anti-racist pedagogy: from faculty’s self-reflection to organizing within and beyond the classroom’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(4), pp. 540–554. UAL (2025) ‘Access and Participation Plan’. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/458 […] “Reflective Report: Positionality Mapping”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Mon, 12 May 2025 19:12:04 +0000

INTERVENTION Embracing Difference: Positionality Mapping as a Tool for Inclusive LearningIn response to the need for more inclusive and critically reflexive group collaboration, I propose introducing a structured Positionality Mapping activity at the start of group projects within the MA Innovation Management course. This intervention encourages students to reflect on and share aspects of their personal, cultural, and professional identities that may shape how they approach teamwork, knowledge, and problem-solving. Rather than assuming “neutral” participation, students will complete a visual mapping of their positionality (e.g. cultural background, disciplinary training, language comfort, access needs, religious practices, working styles). They will be invited — but not required — to share parts of their map with their group, fostering empathy, trust, and better self-organisation. Staff will model the practice in advance by creating and sharing their own maps. This can be framed as a modified version of a personal SWOT analysis — going beyond strengths and weaknesses to include aspects of identity, learning style, and values that shape one’s role in a team. This activity draws on the idea that knowledge is always situated and shaped by lived experience (Cuevas, 2020). By surfacing these perspectives early on, the intervention helps build psychological safety, addresses power imbalances, and aligns with Freire’s (1996) call for education as a dialogic, liberatory process. It also echoes Kishimoto’s (2018) anti-racist pedagogy, which centres self-reflection and power awareness in teaching practice. Though it may resemble group agreements — which define how a group will work together — Positionality Mapping is distinct and comes first. It focuses on individual reflection before group coordination, supporting mutual understanding rather than just consensus. It encourages students to recognise and value the diverse perspectives shaping how each person contributes. This intervention is low-cost, easily facilitated via Miro or paper templates, and highly adaptable. Its relevance is heightened by the diversity of our student cohort at UAL, where race, class, gender, disability, and faith intersect in complex ways. Colleagues from the PgCert responded positively, highlighting its potential to improve group cohesion and reduce invisible barriers in teamwork. Ultimately, Positionality Mapping supports a shift towards inclusive, co-owned learning environments — helping students become aware not only of what they contribute, but of how and why they show up in the way they do (Brookfield, 2017). References Brookfield, S.D. (2017) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cuevas, A.K. (2020) ‘Positionality as Knowledge: From Pedagogy to Praxis’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(3), pp. 527–531. Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books. Kishimoto, K. (2018) ‘Anti-racist pedagogy: from faculty’s self-reflection to organizing within and beyond the c […] “INTERVENTION Embracing Difference: Positionality Mapping as a Tool for Inclusive Learning”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Mon, 12 May 2025 19:03:27 +0000

Race, Power and the Illusion of Inclusion: A Critical Reading of Diversity Discourse in HEAs the final post in this three-part reflection, I turn to race — perhaps the most visible and yet persistently misunderstood axis of structural inequality within higher education. Rather than approach this through anecdote, I focus here on a critical engagement with the literature and media provided, to question the institutional narratives around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Crenshaw’s (1989) framework of intersectionality continues to offer a vital lens. Both Bradbury (2020) and Garrett (2024) extend this by showing how race, when compounded with other social markers like language or educational capital, is not only a source of individual struggle but a systemic fault line. Bradbury reveals how UK assessment policy constructs bilingual learners through deficit logics, recoding language richness as a liability. This is not merely an educational gap — it is a form of epistemic violence. Garrett (2024) deepens this critique, tracing how racialised minority PhD students internalise structural limitations that reshape their imagined futures. The very notion of “career potential” becomes racially coded. This isn’t about overt racism, but about the subtle architecture of higher education, which rewards conformity to white, middle-class ideals while claiming inclusivity. In short, meritocracy is only as fair as the norms it privileges. The TEDx talk by Sadiq (2023) gestures toward a hopeful DEI practice but risks staying at surface level — focusing on representation without redistribution. In contrast, the Channel 4 clip The School That Tried to End Racism promotes a pedagogy of dialogue but reinforces racism as interpersonal. The most reactionary of the set, Orr’s (2022) video for The Telegraph frames racial equity as ideological overreach, positioning white neutrality as the threatened norm. These pieces, when read together, expose a central tension: the institutional desire to appear inclusive without unsettling the very structures that perpetuate inequality. At UAL and similar institutions, we often discuss “race” in terms of presence — who is in the room — rather than power. Yet as the texts reveal, inclusion is not a numbers game. Without addressing the embedded values that shape whose work is seen as legitimate Reflecting on this three-part series, I’ve realised the core demand running through each post is a call for structural honesty — the courage to see where power lives, even in the soft language of inclusion. Race is not just a topic to include in our teaching; it is a system we are all entangled in. It shapes access, opportunity, and voice. As educators, we are not exempt from this — and must learn to name it, navigate it, and challenge it with care. References Bradbury, A. (2020). ‘A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp. 241–260. Channel 4. (2020). The School That Tried to End Racism. [Video Clip]. Crenshaw, K. (1989). ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167. Garrett, R. (2024). ‘Racism shapes careers: Career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp. 2–11. Orr, J. (2022). Revealed: The Charity Turning UK Universities Woke. [Telegraph Video]. Sadiq, A. (2023). Diversi […] “Race, Power and the Illusion of Inclusion: A Critical Reading of Diversity Discourse in HE”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Mon, 12 May 2025 19:02:59 +0000

Faith and Fashion: Aesthetic Freedom or Quiet Exclusion? If intersectionality teaches us anything, it is that lived experience is always shaped by multiple, overlapping identities. Faith, like disability, is not a standalone category; it intersects with race, gender, class, and culture, influencing how individuals navigate institutions and how those institutions respond in turn (Crenshaw, 1989). Engaging with this week’s resources, I appreciated the richness of perspectives offered, particularly the nuanced exploration of racialised and gendered experiences within minority faith groups. In the Trinity University video Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom, for example, students speak powerfully about being misjudged based on their appearance, especially when wearing religious clothing such as the hijab or yarmulke. These reflections highlight important dimensions of faith and embodiment. However, I also found myself reflecting on the notable absence of Christian perspectives in the discussion. This omission is striking in light of updated data from HESA (2023/24), which shows that Christianity remains the most widely declared religious affiliation among students in UK higher education (30%), doubling the next largest group, Islam (14%). And yet, Christian Catholic viewpoints – particularly those addressing modesty, embodiment, and moral reasoning, are often absent from conversations in secular creative spaces. This silence risks perpetuating a form of epistemic erasure, where some beliefs are rendered invisible or perceived as culturally regressive. This table shows the breakdown of UK higher education student enrolments by religious belief from the 2019/20 to 2023/24 academic years (Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA], 2024). Catholic social thought offers a rich tradition of human dignity, care for the other, and responsibility in how we present ourselves in the world. Pope Benedict XVI, in Deus Caritas Est (2005), writes about the body not merely as a physical object but as a vessel of meaning, capable of communicating love, respect, and truth. From this standpoint, modesty is not repression but intentionality: a mindful expression of one’s values, not just a matter of aesthetic preference. This framing sits uncomfortably alongside a dominant ethos where the principle of “everything is accepted” is often celebrated as a marker of progress. Yet this idea, when unexamined, can produce tension. Are we genuinely fostering a shared environment or are we defaulting to a form of expressive individualism that inadvertently sidelines quieter, faith-based forms of expression? I recall a classroom experience that left me, as a person of faith, genuinely shocked and unprepared. A student arrived to a seminar wearing extremely short, ripped denim shorts and a sheer top through which her breasts were entirely visible. While no comments were made during the session, I later heard from several classmates who expressed discomfort and uncertainty about how to participate in the discussion. Their concerns were not about the student’s body, but about the context, and the implicit assumption that such levels of exposure were appropriate in a learning environment. As an educator, I found myself reflecting not only on the moment but on how ill-equipped we often are to navigate such situations. In highly diverse classrooms, are we truly creating spaces where all students, including those of faith, feel able to be fully present? Or are we, by omission, creating environments where certain modes of expression are protected and others quietly marginalised? Appiah’s Is Religion Good or Bad? explores how religious belief informs moral frameworks, yet avoids the tension that arises when religious values confront hyper-liberal interpretations of freedom. Similarly, Jawad (2022), in her study on Muslim women in sport, shows how modesty is often misread as regressive. Christian women, particularly those who choose modest dress as an act of faith, face similar scrutiny, often dismissed as outdated. Yet within Catholic teaching, modesty is understood not as regressive or outdated, but as a meaningful expression of dignity and self-possession. In Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II (2006) reflects on the body as a site of truth capable of revealing the inner life of the person through intentional and respectful presentation. Modesty, in this light, is a way of affirming one’s worth and resisting objectification. It becomes not a denial of visibility, but a form of clarity, a refusal to be reduced to external perception and a quiet assertion of agency within shared cultural spaces. Inclusion in higher education, particularly within creative fields, must move beyond surface-level visibility and account for the deeper complexities of shared space. Visibility for some can unintentionally result in the silencing or withdrawal of others. If one student feels empowered by revealing their body, while another feels unable to speak or be present in that same environment, we must ask whether our classrooms are truly inclusive or simply permissive in ways that favour dominant modes of expression. When does fashion shift from liberation to exclusion? Are we genuinely attentive to the needs of those whose beliefs call for modesty, reverence, or discretion? This is not a call for censorship, but an invitation to re-evaluate how we define respect within educational settings. While we rightly celebrate personal expression, we seldom interrogate its boundaries when it unfolds in shared, pluralistic spaces. When freedom of expression and freedom of conscience come into tension, what structures are in place to ensure that all students and staff – not just the most visible or outspoken – feel safe, dignified, and heard? Ignoring such tensions is not neutral; it shapes who feels they belong and who does not. For many students and staff, faith remains a meaningful source of identity, purpose, and ethical grounding, just as others may be shaped by secular, humanist, or non-religious beliefs. True inclusivity is not about privileging one worldview over another, but about fostering a learning environment where a range of values and expressions can coexist respectfully. This includes making space for modesty as well as visibility, conviction as well as questioning. Inclusive education must be attentive to difference in its many forms, recognising that a genuine sense of belonging is not created through uniformity, but through mutual care and thoughtful dialogue. I’m still learning what this looks like in practice, but I keep asking myself: how can I, as an educator, better hold space for all students, including those whose beliefs, practices, or silences might otherwise go unnoticed? References Appiah, K. A. (2014). Is Religion Good or Bad? [Video]. TED. Crenshaw, K. (1989). ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167. Jawad, H. (2022). Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women [Video]. Trinity University (2016). Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom [Video]. Pope Benedict XVI (2005). Deus Caritas Est [Encyclical]. Vatican.va. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2024) Who’s in HE? Personal characteristics of students. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-an […] “Faith and Fashion: Aesthetic Freedom or Quiet Exclusion?”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Mon, 12 May 2025 17:35:07 +0000

Disability, Language, and the Invisible Architecture of ParticipationLast term, I had a Chinese student in my postgraduate class who consistently produced brilliant individual work — sharp insights, strong research frameworks, thoughtful responses to feedback. And yet, during group activities, she struggled to be heard. She relied on a real-time translator app to convert English conversation into Chinese via her phone, and would often join in a few beats after her peers had already moved the conversation forward. Nobody excluded her intentionally — but her presence remained peripheral. This experience has stayed with me. It prompted me to reflect on how language barriers, while not typically classified as “disability,” can function as structural obstacles that similarly restrict access to participation, knowledge production, and recognition in higher education. When we talk about inclusion, do we assume linguistic fluency as a baseline? And if we do, whom are we unconsciously leaving out? Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) theory of intersectionality helps illuminate how different forms of marginalisation compound. In this case, the student’s experience is shaped not just by language, but by culture, race, and a specific pedagogical model that privileges speed, fluency, and verbal spontaneity. Her knowledge wasn’t any less valuable — but it wasn’t compatible with the pace and format of the group work. As a result, it went largely unheard. According to Oliver’s (1990) Social Model of Disability, it is not impairment that disables, but the way environments are structured. If we take this seriously, then her experience is not a language problem — it’s a design problem. Are group work structures that reward quick, English-based verbal interaction that are not neutral? They are environments built for a particular kind of student. Garland-Thomson’s (2002) concept of “misfitting” furthers this point: the mismatch between body (or mind, or language) and system isn’t inherent — it’s contextual. The same student might thrive in a reflective seminar, a visual map-making session, or an asynchronous discussion thread. But in fast-paced group debates, she might misfit — not because of her capability, but because the mode of participation didn’t leave enough room for her way of engaging. It leaves me wondering: how often do our teaching formats inadvertently signal who belongs — and who doesn’t — without our meaning to? The deeper issue, as Fricker (2007) would argue, is one of epistemic injustice: a student’s ability to contribute knowledge is compromised not by lack of insight, but by lack of recognition. In spaces where diversity is celebrated in principle, the actual formats for learning can still default to fast-paced, verbal, and English-dominant modes of exchange. It raises a difficult but necessary question: when students struggle to engage in these settings, are we too quick to see it as a personal limitation — and too slow to ask whether the structure itself might need rethinking? In response, I invited the group to reflect on how we might adapt our ways of working to ensure everyone could contribute more meaningfully. They proposed using shared written boards, audio voice notes, clearer turn-taking, and allowing more time for translation. These adjustments weren’t perfect, but they changed the pace and tone of the collaboration. With more entry points and shared responsibility, contributions that had previously been missed began to land. It made me wonder: what else becomes possible when inclusion is shaped collectively, rather than delivered top-down? This experience reminded me that the line between “language barrier” and “disablement” is not always where we think it is. When we talk about inclusion, we must look not only at the bodies and minds in the room, but at the rhythms and assumptions that govern how we teach. Sometimes, being left behind is not about ability — it’s about tempo, design, and who the classroom was built for in the first place. References Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167. Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garland-Thomson, R. (2002) ‘Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory’, NWSA Journal, 14(3), pp. 1–32. hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge. Oliver, M. (1990) The Po […] “Disability, Language, and the Invisible Architecture of Participation”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 21:05:33 +0000

A Journey Through the First PgCert UnitThis first unit of the PgCert has been a fascinating and thought-provoking journey, allowing me to step back and critically engage with my teaching practice in ways I had not previously considered. The process of reading, learning, and engaging in deeper discussions about learning and teaching has made me far more conscious of the theoretical underpinnings that shape higher education pedagogy. One of the most striking realisations has been how, as lecturers, we often apply pedagogical theories instinctively in our teaching, without necessarily recognising them as established frameworks. Instead, we tend to draw from our lived experiences in the classroom and our industry practices, responding to challenges and student needs intuitively. This has reinforced for me the importance of bridging practical experience with theoretical knowledge to enhance both teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes (Griffiths & Tann, 1992). A major theme has been the interconnectedness of pedagogical elements. While I initially explored voice and assertiveness in the classroom, my reflections naturally expanded into inclusivity, active learning, and assessment strategies. Peer learning has been a particularly enriching aspect of this unit. Engaging in discussions, sharing experiences, and providing and receiving feedback from colleagues has been invaluable. The microteaching session was a particularly insightful experience—being observed and receiving structured feedback allowed me to see my teaching through the lens of others, highlighting aspects I may have otherwise overlooked. Although my observation task was limited to reviewing a briefing deck rather than observing live teaching, the process of reflecting on teaching materials with a critical eye still provided useful insights. This experience has reinforced the importance of self-awareness and adaptability—being open to critique, refining methods, and continuously evolving in response to feedback (Race, 2001). Another significant learning point has been around feedback and assessment. Engaging in discussions with peers has sparked new ideas about assessment methods that I am keen to explore in my own teaching. The exploration of formative and summative feedback has prompted me to think more deeply about how assessment can be used not just as a tool for evaluation but as a means to facilitate deeper learning. The idea of assessing the learning process itself has been particularly thought-provoking. Feedback should not be a one-time event but an ongoing dialogue, enabling students to develop their critical thinking and reflective capabilities (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). This aligns with the principles of national professional development frameworks in higher education, which emphasise the role of constructive feedback in fostering student autonomy and engagement. Inclusivity has also been a key theme throughout this unit. Discussions on how different learners engage with content, the importance of designing assessments that cater to diverse learning styles, and the role of accessibility in fostering an equitable learning environment have all been instrumental in shaping my reflections. These insights have made me more mindful of the small but intentional changes I can make in my own practice to ensure that all students, regardless of their background or learning preferences, feel supported and included in the learning process. Understanding intercultural competence has also played a role in this, particularly in recognising the different ways students engage with learning based on their cultural and educational backgrounds (Deardorff, 2006). Looking ahead, I am excited to carry these reflections forward into the next phase of my PgCert journey. This first unit has provided a strong foundation, encouraging me to be more intentional about my teaching choices while continuing to experiment with different methods. The opportunity to conceptualise my practice within the broader landscape of higher education frameworks has been invaluable, and I am keen to build on this learning as I refine my approach further. I am grateful for the rich discussions, the generosity of peers in sharing their experiences, and the thought-provoking insights that have emerged throughout this process. There is still so much to explore, and I look forward to seeing how these reflections will continue to shape my teaching practice in the long term. References: Deardorff, D. K. (2006) ‘Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), pp. 241-266. Griffiths, M. and Tann, S. (1992) ‘Reflective practice – linking personal and public theories’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(1), pp. 69-84. Nicol, D. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199-218. Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN […] “A Journey Through the First PgCert Unit”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:24:18 +0000

CASE STUDY 3: Implementing a Structured Mid-Unit Checkpoint for Equitable LearningThis case study explores the implementation of a mid-unit checkpoint in Unit 3: Situating Innovation within the MA Innovation Management course at CSM. It examines how structured feedback supports student progress and equitable participation in assessing and giving feedback for learning. Additionally, it aligns with the A3 (assess and give feedback for learning), A5 (enhance practice through professional development), K3 (critical evaluation for effective practice), K5 (quality assurance and enhancement), and V5 (collaborate with others to enhance practice) from the Professional Standards Framework. Background The Situating Innovation unit is an 11-week-long research-based unit where students develop and refine their research proposals. In the past years, despite its duration, there was no structured checkpoint for students to receive interim feedback, apart from voluntary crit sessions organized during class times. While these sessions provided valuable peer interaction, they disproportionately benefited confident students, leaving quieter or less proactive students with limited engagement and feedback opportunities. Having successfully implemented and conducted structured checkpoints in other LCF courses, I recognized the benefits of a more inclusive and guided mid-unit feedback session. These checkpoints had proven effective in maintaining student momentum, helping staff identify common struggles, and promoting a deeper engagement with feedback and learning outcomes. Given this experience, I introduced the first-ever structured mid-unit checkpoint for MAIM to ensure all students received formative feedback, gained external perspectives, and refined their research direction before final submission. Evaluation The newly introduced checkpoint session was carefully structured to optimize student engagement and feedback quality: Mandatory participation: Unlike voluntary crits, all students were required to present their progress, ensuring broader participation. Cross-supervision feedback: To offer fresh insights, students were not assigned to their own supervisors but instead presented to a different faculty member. Small group structure: Three parallel sessions were conducted with two staff members per room, optimizing discussion time and feedback quality. Accountability and reflection: Each student had 10 minutes to present, which pushed them to organize their research coherently, promoting self-reflection and preparedness. The response from students was overwhelmingly positive. They particularly appreciated: Hearing their peers’ progress, which helped them benchmark their own work. Gaining external faculty perspectives, which provided fresh, unbiased feedback. Being pushed to structure their work earlier, reducing last-minute stress. From a theoretical perspective, this aligns with Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) Seven Principles of Good Feedback, particularly in clarifying performance standards, fostering self-reflection, and encouraging sustained engagement. Additionally, Race (2001) highlights the importance of structured self, peer, and group assessment in enhancing learning, reinforcing the value of this checkpoint session. A key lesson was that mandatory participation created a more equitable learning experience. In contrast to the previous voluntary crits – where only confident students engaged – this structured format ensured all students received and acted upon constructive feedback, as emphasized by O’Donovan, Price & Rust (2004) in their work on making assessment criteria explicit and accessible. Moving Forward Reflecting on this intervention and incorporating insights from the PgCert discussions on crits, I identified key enhancements for future sessions: Structuring peer feedback within the checkpoint: While peer crits were previously optional and often dominated by confident students, I plan to formalize a peer feedback component within the checkpoint session. This structured approach will ensure all students actively engage with their peers’ work, promoting deeper critical reflection while still benefiting from staff insights. Optimizing session formats for deeper engagement: Some students expressed a need for more time to discuss their feedback in depth. To address this, I propose conducting the checkpoint in smaller groups over multiple days, resembling a group tutorial format. This would allow for more focused conversations and closer interaction with both peers and staff. Enhancing participation and inclusivity: Combining structured peer crits with faculty feedback will create a more balanced learning experience, ensuring that students who may be less confident in presenting still receive constructive input. A clear framework for guiding peer discussions will also be introduced to help students provide meaningful feedback. Encouraging reflection and application of feedback: Inspired by Russell (2010) on assessment patterns, I propose requiring students to reflect on and integrate checkpoint feedback into their final work. While this is not currently a formal requirement, introducing a reflective journal or structured self-assessment for longer units would help students track their intellectual and methodological development over time. By implementing these refinements, the checkpoint session will not only provide valuable feedback but also reinforce students’ ability to assess their own work critically, engage more actively with feedback, and integrate it meaningfully into their research process. References Brooks, K. (2008) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback. University of the West of England. Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199-218. O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), pp. 325-335. Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre. Russell, M. (2010) Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Co […] “CASE STUDY 3: Implementing a Structured Mid-Unit Checkpoint for Equitable Learning”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:18:48 +0000

REFLECTIONS ON BEING OBSERVED BY A PGCERT TUTOR: Innovation, Engagement, and Future-Proofing PitchesThis post reflects on a seminar in which I was observed by a PgCert tutor, focusing on engaging students in collaborative innovation and critical thinking while facilitating rapid idea development and pitching. See the observation notes in this link. Delivering a seminar for the MBA from LCF around Innovation and Fashion Business Futures was an enriching experience. This was my first engagement with this cohort – I will be supervising two students in their final Consultancy Project. My objective was to create a highly interactive and applied learning session that complemented the recorded lecture I shared a week before and they had previously watched. The seminar explored disruptive technologies and strategic innovation frameworks in fashion, with a particular emphasis on practical application and critical analysis. Key Reflections on Engagement and Communication A key priority was to foster student engagement and facilitate meaningful discussions. I sought to create an open and inclusive learning environment, encouraging students to actively participate by acknowledging their contributions and linking their insights to broader seminar themes. However, fostering critical engagement requires more than just participation – it demands the ability to challenge assumptions, question dominant narratives, and synthesise diverse perspectives. My tutor’s observations highlighted that my communication style was effective in engaging students. By employing active listening techniques – such as non-verbal cues, backchanneling, and reinforcement through follow-up questions – I was able to establish rapport and maintain an interactive dialogue. A particular strength noted was my ability to bridge theoretical models, with real-world industry applications, ensuring that students understood both the conceptual framework and its limitations in practice. One constructive piece of feedback was the need to manage participation dynamics, particularly in instances where a single student dominated the conversation. Ensuring equitable participation is essential, and I will adopt strategies such as redirecting questions to the group (e.g., “That’s a great question-what do others think?”) and setting clear expectations for time allocation during discussions. This also raises a broader pedagogical question: how can educators cultivate an environment where quieter voices feel empowered to contribute without the discussion being overly structured or constrained? Refining Group Activities and Task Management The seminar was structured around a group-based task in which students developed and pitched a future-proofing strategy for Nike. To set up the activity, I used a combination of slides and verbal explanations, incorporating structured prompts and brand imagery to provide context. While my tutor found the slides visually engaging, they also noted that certain aspects -such as font readability and colour contrast- could be improved for accessibility. This is an important consideration, and I will be more mindful of inclusive design principles in future materials. This feedback also prompted me to reflect on whether my reliance on visual stimuli was inadvertently privileging certain learning styles over others. Would a greater integration of alternative instructional strategies, such as concept mapping or case-based debate, provide a richer learning experience? Additionally, verbal check-ins were an effective method for gauging student understanding of the task. However, my tutor suggested incorporating a quick recap from each group to ensure clarity before students embarked on the exercise. I find this a very useful recommendation, as it provides an additional layer of confirmation and allows for the early identification of any misunderstandings. It also raises a fundamental consideration about scaffolding independent learning -how much structure should be provided to ensure comprehension while allowing space for students to take ownership of their interpretations? Supporting Student Collaboration and Critical Thinking Throughout the session, I actively monitored student discussions, offering guidance and prompting critical thinking through targeted questions. My tutor noted that my approach – encouraging brainstorming, suggesting mapping exercises, and ensuring time management – helped keep students focused and productive. One key takeaway for me is the need for adaptability in managing time during interactive sessions. I made real-time adjustments, such as encouraging concise, structured pitches, to align with the time constraints. This flexibility proved effective, but it also highlighted a potential tension: in prioritising efficiency, do we risk sacrificing deeper inquiry? Encouraging students to think critically about emerging technologies requires both structure and open-ended exploration – striking this balance remains a continual challenge in my teaching practice. Key Takeaways and Future Improvements This seminar provided a valuable opportunity to refine my teaching practice, and I greatly appreciate my tutor’s insightful observations. Moving forward, I aim to Implement strategies to ensure balanced participation, such as actively inviting diverse voices into discussions while encouraging self-regulation among more vocal students. Enhance accessibility in my slide design by improving colour contrast and readability, while also diversifying instructional materials to cater to different learning styles. Introduce structured group check-ins, where students recap instructions to confirm understanding before starting their tasks, ensuring a balance between guided support and independent exploration. Continue to integrate industry insights with theoretical frameworks, while challenging students to critically evaluate dominant industry discourses rather than accepting them at face value. Overall, I am pleased with how students engaged in critically assessing innovation strategies in fashion. Their discussions demonstrated a strong grasp of key concepts while highlighting the need for continuous refinement in pedagogical approaches. Additionally, this session prompted reflection on my voice – not only in terms of student participation but also as a tool to stimulate creativity and critical thinking. The way I use my voice to assert ideas, pose thought-provoking questions, and challenge students to think beyond conventional solutions is instrumental in shaping the seminar dynamic. Given the task of developing and pitching an innovative tech concept within an hour, my voice played a crucial role in guiding students through uncertainty, encouraging them to embrace rapid ideation, and instilling confidence in their creative instincts. Striking the right balance between assertiveness and encouragement ensures that students feel both challenged and supported, enabling them to articulate and refine their ideas more effectively. I look forward to further developing my vocal delivery a […] “REFLECTIONS ON BEING OBSERVED BY A PGCERT TUTOR: Innovation, Engagement, and Future-Proofing Pitches”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 18:58:06 +0000

REFLECTIONS ON OBSERVING A PEER: Review of a Briefing DeckThis post is based on an observation of a session deck rather than a face-to-face session. As such, the level of detail and insight into actual delivery, student engagement, and facilitation techniques is not present. Additionally, as I am not familiar with the broader context of this course, my ability to fully grasp the depth of this brief deck is very restricted. Therefore, the following notes focuses primarily on the clarity, structure, and alignment of the provided content with the intended learning outcomes outlined in the same deck, rather than commenting its effectiveness in real-time. See the observation notes in this link. The Responsible Design Unit Launch session deck appears to provide a well-structured introduction to ethical, inclusive, and sustainable design principles within the BA Graphic Media Design curriculum. It seems designed to foster critical engagement, creativity, and collaboration, while introducing students to key themes such as Equity, Futures, Ethos, and Systems. The combination of interactive activities, discussions, and reflection-based tasks supports different learning styles and encourages students to critically engage with their own design practice. However, given that this is a briefing session rather than a content-based instructional resource, this review is necessarily structural, focusing on the clarity and formatting of the slides. Without insight into how discussions unfold, how students engage, or how facilitation supports learning, the observations remain focused on the design of the deck rather than its real-time impact. Strengths noted: Strong alignment with learning outcomes The session seems to effectively transmit and include all three intended learning outcomes (Enquiry, Communication, and Process) through hands-on activities and discussions. The “Becoming Material” and “Collective Library” activities particularly stand out in supporting exploration, articulation of values, and iterative development, which align well with the unit’s objectives. Engaging and interactive activities The “Becoming Material” activity seems to be a unique and immersive way to introduce students to materiality, prompting them to think critically about its history, usage, and implications. The role-playing aspect (first-person narrative) adds a performative and reflective layer to learning. The “Collective Library” activity encourages independent research and knowledge-sharing, reinforcing students’ ability to contextualize responsible design beyond their immediate experience. Clear structure and flow The session appears to follow a logical progression, beginning with introductory activities (settling in and welcoming), followed by active engagement (hands-on activities, research, and mind-mapping), then unpacking the unit brief in more detail, and finally concluding with reflective learning and extended discussion. Time allocations appear well-considered, ensuring that activities have a clear beginning, middle, and end without feeling rushed. Encouragement of inclusivity and open dialogue The Session Etiquette slide at the beginning appears to set clear expectations around active listening, supportive responding, and inclusivity, which is particularly important given the potentially sensitive topics addressed in responsible design. The open-ended and exploratory nature of the activities ensures that students with diverse perspectives can contribute meaningfully. Engaging slide design The slides are well-structured, visually clear, and engaging, making the key information accessible and easy to follow. The use of visuals, concise text, and a logical sequence helps maintain clarity while reinforcing the session’s main themes. This session appears to be well-designed with a thoughtful balance of engagement, discussion, and active learning, making responsible design accessible and stimulating for students as a briefing session. That said, my observations remain limited due to the nature of the deck provided, which serves as a briefing session rather than a content-based lecture. A more in-depth review would require observation of the live session, student interactions, and facilitation dynamics to ful […] “REFLECTIONS ON OBSERVING A PEER: Review of a Briefing Deck”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Fri, 07 Mar 2025 16:09:23 +0000

CASE STUDY 2: Navigating Cultural and Educational Diversity in Collaborative LearningThis case study addresses the importance of adapting teaching strategies to accommodate students’ diverse academic experiences, ensuring an equitable learning environment. It aligns with the Professional Standards Framework, specifically addressing A2: teaching and supporting learning through appropriate approaches and environments and V1: respecting individual learners and diverse groups of learners, while also incorporating elements of K2: approaches to teaching and supporting learning appropriate for subject and level of study. The study is based on the Collaborative Unit run by MAIM and MAAI at CSM, and it explores how different student experiences influence teamwork and knowledge-sharing and how the application of cultural and educational theories can support more effective collaboration. Given that many UAL programmes incorporate collaborative units, discussions with colleagues across various courses and faculties confirm that these challenges are widely shared. You can check here another post related to the Collaborative Unit (Reflections on being observed by a peer: Facilitating Team Collaboration and Conflict Resolution). Background In today’s globalised higher education landscape, classrooms are increasingly diverse, with students bringing varied cultural and educational backgrounds that shape their approaches to learning and collaboration (Deardorff, 2006). While this diversity enhances the learning experience by introducing multiple perspectives, it also presents challenges, particularly in group work, where different understandings of collaboration, leadership, and communication can lead to misunderstandings and conflict (Meyer, 2014). The Collaborative Unit has run for 6 weeks and one key challenge identified at the very beginning of the project was that students experienced frustration and difficulty progressing with their teamwork due to misaligned expectations and differing approaches to academic work. Many struggled to understand how their peers structured tasks, made decisions, and engaged in collaborative problem-solving, leading to inefficiencies and tensions within the group. This aligns with findings from Hofstede (2001), who emphasised that educational expectations vary significantly across cultures due to differing levels of power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance. In our observed case, some students were highly familiar with independent research and self-directed learning, while others were engaging with structured academic inquiry in a group setting for the first time. Evaluation To address these challenges and foster a more inclusive learning environment, we introduced Erin Meyer’s Cultural Map framework, a widely recognised model that highlights how cultures differ across dimensions such as communication style, decision-making, and attitudes towards confrontation (Meyer, 2014). By mapping themselves and their peers within this framework, students gained deeper insights into their own collaborative styles and recognised that tensions often stemmed from cultural predispositions rather than personal shortcomings. In parallel, Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory was introduced to provide further context on how different cultures approach learning and collaboration. For example, students from collectivist cultures, where group harmony is prioritised, initially hesitated to assert their perspectives, whereas students from more individualist cultures were accustomed to voicing their opinions assertively (Hofstede, 2001). This discrepancy created initial communication barriers, reinforcing the importance of explicitly addressing these dynamics in an academic setting. Through these frameworks, students were able to identify the root causes of their frustrations, acknowledge the influence of cultural differences, and develop strategies for effective collaboration. Moreover, by discussing conflict moderation techniques such as assertive communication, students gained the confidence to express their perspectives in a constructive manner, eliminating any unspoken tensions or “elephants in the room” (Deardorff, 2009). The integration of cultural mapping tools significantly enhanced students’ ability to collaborate effectively. In their final presentations, students demonstrated a remarkable level of self-awareness by mapping each group member’s position within the Cultural Map framework, illustrating how their diverse backgrounds contributed to the group’s collective learning process, and how the differences enhanced the final submission. This exercise not only improved teamwork dynamics but also fostered a sense of inclusivity, empowering students to articulate their ideas assertively and respectfully (Deardorff, 2009). Moving forward To foster more effective collaboration in diverse learning environments, I aim to embed cultural competence awareness into the curriculum, by including some of the following: Workshops on intercultural communication, providing students with practical tools to navigate diverse teams effectively (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). Reflective exercises on personal biases and cultural expectations in learning environments (Gudykunst, 2004). Ongoing use of cultural frameworks such as Meyer’s Cultural Map and Hofstede’s dimensions to ensure that students develop the skills necessary for global collaboration. These strategies equip students with the awareness and adaptability needed to engage effectively in diverse professional and academic environments, preparing them for the complexities of an interconnected world (Holliday, Hyde, & Kullman, 2010). References Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266. Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge. Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. New York: PublicAffairs. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approa […] “CASE STUDY 2: Navigating Cultural and Educational Diversity in Collaborative Learning”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:38:22 +0000

The Art of Mediation: How Voice, Objects, and Art Shape Engagement – Insights from the Workshop ReadingsFor the last few posts here, […] “”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:24:22 +0000

REFLECTIONS ON BEING OBSERVED BY A PEER: Facilitating Team Collaboration and Conflict ResolutionThis post is a reflection on a one-hour tutorial in which I was observed by a peer as part of my ongoing PgCert journey, focusing on facilitating team collaboration and conflict resolution. See the observation notes in this link. Facilitating collaboration is never straightforward—especially when working with diverse teams where expectations, communication styles, and cultural understandings of teamwork can vary significantly. My most recent tutorial was a perfect example of this complexity, offering an opportunity to observe, reflect, and refine approaches to fostering effective teamwork. This session formed part of a six-week collaborative unit where students from MA Innovation Management and MA Applied Imagination work in cross-disciplinary teams to identify an opportunity for collaboration with an institution from the Knowledge Quarter. The end goal is to present a future-proof idea or proposal, integrating research, strategy, and creative thinking. Importantly, the observed session covered only one hour of a three-hour tutorial, and this tutorial itself was just one of many across the six-week unit. The broader learning journey includes multiple touchpoints, including structured team-building activities, reflective exercises, and conflict-resolution strategies. Cross-Group Sharing: Creating Space for Reflection We started the tutorial with a cross-group sharing exercise, designed to give students the chance to step outside their immediate teams and engage in an informal yet insightful exchange with another group. The activity took place outdoors, with snacks on hand to create a relaxed environment—small but intentional choices aimed at encouraging openness and reducing pressure. Students were asked to reflect on their team’s collaboration dynamics and share insights with a peer from another team. They approached this exercise in different ways—some focused on solutions and workflow adjustments, while others expressed frustration over unresolved tensions. The challenge, of course, is to bridge these perspectives, ensuring discussions move beyond venting and towards constructive action. One notable observation was that the presence of an external observer created some initial hesitation among students. I had deliberately not introduced the observer formally during this short activity (10min), as I wanted to maintain the authenticity of the discussion. While this decision led to some momentary confusion, it also allowed students to engage more naturally. In future, I will assess on a case-by-case basis whether a formal introduction is beneficial—or if a low-key approach helps students express themselves more freely. DESC: A Framework for Addressing Tensions As part of the preparation for this session, students were introduced to the DESC framework from Scott (Describe, Express, Specify, Consequences)—a communication model designed to structure feedback and resolve tensions in a constructive manner. While the observer noted that the group discussions could have benefited from additional reflective tools such as a SWOT analysis, I realised that I had not explicitly shared the DESC framework with the observer beforehand. As a result, the underlying structure of the student reflections may not have been immediately clear. This highlighted a valuable learning point for me as a facilitator: when inviting an external observer into a session, ensuring they have full context on the methodologies being used can provide greater clarity in their feedback and interpretation of student interactions. Navigating Conflict: Strength-Based Approaches Another recurring theme in the tutorial was conflict within teams—a natural, if often uncomfortable, aspect of group work. Issues ranged from differences in work ethic and commitment levels to interpersonal tensions and frustration over perceived imbalances. Rather than focusing solely on problem-solving, I encouraged students to take a strength-based approach—recognising what was working well within their teams and using that as a foundation for addressing challenges constructively. One particularly effective tool for this was revisiting their original team charter. By reconnecting with their initial values and agreements, students were able to identify areas where they had drifted and make conscious decisions about what to adjust moving forward. Beyond the immediate challenges of the unit, I emphasised that these moments of tension, negotiation, and recalibration were not just about completing an assignment but about developing critical life skills. The ability to navigate team dynamics, manage disagreements, and foster productive collaboration will be essential in their future careers—whether as leaders, innovators, or change-makers. I encouraged them to see team collaboration as a leadership skill in itself—one that, when mastered, will strengthen their ability to work across disciplines, influence others, and drive meaningful impact in professional environments. Final Reflections and Moving Forward This session reaffirmed the importance of structured reflection, open dialogue, and adaptability in collaboration. Encouraging students to articulate challenges, revisit their commitments, and actively engage in conflict resolutionnot only enhances their project outcomes but also equips them with lifelong skills for professional teamwork. One area I want to further explore in future sessions is the power of voice in communication—how students use their tone, volume, and presence to assert themselves within a team. Effective collaboration isn’t just about what is said, but how it is conveyed, and I see great potential in integrating voice-awareness exercises into future tutorials. This connects with my previous reflections on the importance of using one’s voice wisely, not just as a tool for expression, but as a strategic instrument for influence, leadership, and fostering a productive team environment. Facilitating teamwork is rarely linear, and there’s no single formula for success. However, by continually refining our approaches—both as tutors and students—we can create more resilient, adaptable, and engaged teams who are prepared not just for […] “REFLECTIONS ON BEING OBSERVED BY A PEER: Facilitating Team Collaboration and Conflict Resolution”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:42:07 +0000

From Safe Spaces to Brave VoicesReflecting on my Microteaching session, I see a strong parallel between the ideas explored in Arao & Clemens’ (2021) “From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces” and the way we use voice in teaching. Their argument—that learning environments should not only be safe but also brave—resonates deeply with my exploration of voice, communication, and assertiveness. In both my microteaching session and the case study I wrote, participants—educator peers and students alike—experimented with how vocal tone carries authority and intent (The Imaginary Ball Game) and how storytelling shifts when we change perspective (The Peeler Activity). These exercises moved them beyond passive speech into intentional, embodied communication, much like Brave Spaces push educators beyond neutral facilitation into active, engaged presence. Fostering voice awareness is essential for building “brave” communication—speech, presentations, and lectures that are not just present but truly heard, not just delivered but deeply engaging. Brave communicators do more than just find their own voice—they empower others to find theirs. Assertiveness in communication isn’t about being the loudest in the room; it’s about speaking with confidence, clarity, and purpose. In the classroom, a teacher’s voice sets the tone for participation, dialogue, and inclusivity. When we model assertive, intentional speaking, we encourage students to do the same—to express themselves openly, challenge ideas, and engage critically without fear. Moving forward, I want to deepen my exploration of how voice can transform the learning space. How can we train ourselves to harness vocal presence in a way that fosters engagement and trust? How do we help students build their own assertive voices? These questions guide my next steps – because if we want to create brave spaces, we need to start with brave voices. References Arao, B. & Clemens, K. (2021). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In: L.A. Landreman (ed.) The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators. 2nd edn. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, pp. 13 […] “From Safe Spaces to Brave Voices”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:37:13 +0000

CASE STUDY 1: Enhancing Collaboration through Assertive CommunicationThis case study explores how I used evidence-informed approaches to know and respond to my students’ diverse needs – addressing V1 (respect for diverse learners), V2 (promoting participation and equality), and V3 (evidence-informed practice) – in a collaborative setting where uneven participation and communication barriers impacted group dynamics. To address this, I implemented a structured intervention to enhance assertive communication, foster inclusion, and promote equitable teamwork, aligning with A2 (supporting learning), K3 (how students learn collaboratively), and K4 (the use of effective learning environments and approaches) to create a more inclusive and participatory learning experience. Background As part of the MA Innovation Management programme, I tutor students in Unit 2: Collaborative Practices, which fosters interdisciplinary collaboration between MA Innovation Management and MA Applied Imagination students at CSM. This unit is structured around small-group tutorials, collective lectures, guest speaker sessions, and guided readings. Each group is assigned a dedicated tutor for three-hour weekly sessions, providing close guidance and an opportunity for deep engagement. My assigned group (The Dream Team), an imbalance in participation emerged early on, with two students taking on the bulk of the work while others remained passive. This created frustration, disengagement, and potential conflict, making it difficult for the group to function effectively. Communication and confidence appeared to be the root causes, as the quieter members hesitated to assert themselves, while the more active students became increasingly frustrated. Recognising that effective communication is key to equitable collaboration, I sought to implement a structured intervention to encourage assertive participation. Evaluation Having recently conducted the microteaching exercise (the Friday before), I adapted an activity from that session to address communication barriers within the group. The “Invisible Ball” exercise – initially designed to help participants discover their assertive voice – was repurposed to demonstrate how clear objectives improve communication. The activity required students to verbalise their intention as they “passed” an imaginary ball, ensuring the recipient was aware and prepared. Though seemingly lighthearted, the exercise underscored key principles of workplace communication: Clear articulation of intent – The ball could only be successfully “passed” with explicit verbalisation, mirroring how tasks in teamwork require clarity and direct communication (Bamber & Jones, 2015). Confidence in delivery – Initially, some students hesitated, but they quickly realised that assertive speech—not dominance—ensured the message was received (Griffiths & Tann, 1992). Balanced participation – The exercise naturally equalised engagement, allowing quieter students to find their voice in a low-risk environment (Arao & Clemens, 2021). Following the activity, I guided a reflection on how clear, direct communication is essential in professional environments, particularly when navigating group work challenges. Students recognised how unclear expectations had contributed to uneven workloads and identified strategies to rebalance their collaboration. To reinforce this learning, I introduced two additional strategies: Structured Check-Ins: Weekly tutorials began and ended with brief reflections on each member’s contributions, ensuring that accountability was embedded into the process. Peer-Led Problem-Solving: Instead of defaulting to my intervention, I encouraged students to discuss workload imbalances collaboratively, strengthening self-regulation and collective responsibility (Gibbs, 2015). These adjustments significantly improved participation and engagement, fostering greater trust, confidence, and commitment within the group. Moving forward This experience reinforced the importance of active facilitation in student-led learning. Moving forward, I aim to: Introduce communication-focused exercises earlier in the unit to pre-empt collaboration challenges. Develop structured peer-feedback mechanisms, allowing students to reflect on their group roles and adjust dynamics proactively. Continue embedding reflective practice, encouraging students to critically assess their own contributions and communication strategies (Wilson, 2021). By embedding these principles into my teaching practice, I aim to further support students in developing clear communication skills, fostering equitable participation, and building confidence in collaborative settings. References Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2021). From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces. Bamber, V., & Jones, N. (2015). Enabling Inclusive Learning (Ch.11). Gibbs, G. (2015). Maximising Student Learning Gain (Ch.14). Griffiths, M., & Tann, S. (1992). Reflective Practice – Linking Personal and Public Theories. Wil […] “CASE STUDY 1: Enhancing Collaboration through Assertive Communication”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:49:50 +0000

MICROTEACHING REFLECTION: The Power of Voice and Presence in the ClassroomStepping into my […] “”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:54:09 +0000

The Power of Our Voice in TeachingAs I started thinking about my upcoming Microteaching session, I kept circling back to one question: How much do we actually consider the way we use our voice? Voice is something so natural, so automatic, that we often take it for granted—until, of course, we find ourselves struggling to be heard, misunderstood, or simply ignored. Whether in everyday life, at work, or in the classroom, the way we use our voice can shape interactions, influence perceptions, and determine outcomes. Yet, so often, we misuse it, or worse, fail to use it effectively at all. Take the classic example of team projects. How often do we see one proactive student taking on most of the work while others coast along? Frustration builds, tensions rise, and yet, many students struggle to voice their concerns in a way that is constructive and effective. The ability to set boundaries, to express frustrations without alienating others, and to assert oneself with confidence is a skill that should be actively encouraged—not just in students but in all of us. This got me thinking about assertive communication and how it plays a crucial role in teaching. It’s not just about speaking up—it’s about using our voice intentionally to set the tone, to guide discussions, to encourage participation, and to establish authority without resorting to dominance. Scott (yes, let’s bring in some academic backing!) suggests that assertive communication helps navigate difficult conversations, reduces stress, and prevents resentment from creeping into interactions. We’ve all had those moments where we hold back what we really want to say, only to overthink it later. But what if we had a simple, structured way to handle these situations in real time? That’s where I came across the DESC method, a powerful yet straightforward tool for assertive communication: D – Describe the situation clearly and objectively—stick to the facts. E – Express how you feel using “I” statements to avoid sounding accusatory. S – Specify what you would like to happen instead—be direct and clear. C – Consequences—outline both positive and negative outcomes if things do or don’t change. I’ve been observing this pattern for a long time—students often struggle with group work, regardless of the course or context. However, the Collaborative Unit at MA Innovation Management (CSM) has been a particularly interesting setting to analyze these dynamics more closely. Bringing together students from two different courses to work in teams highlights the same recurring challenge I’ve seen time and time again: some students naturally step into leadership roles, while others remain passive, waiting to be directed. But what if we equipped them with the skills to navigate these group tensions with assertive, confident communication? This brings me back to my Microteaching session. The more I reflect on this, the more I realize how fundamental voice is in the teaching context—not just what we say, but how we say it. How do we use our voice to command attention without intimidating?How do we encourage discussion without losing authority?How do we shift between assertiveness and warmth to create an engaging learning environment? I’m beginning to see voice not just as a tool, but as a powerful instrument—one that can influence everything from student participation to classroom energy. And if voice is this powerful for us as educators, can you imagine the impact it could have if students mastered it too? So, my Microteaching session will focus on using and mastering voice as a powerful tool in teaching. I want to explore how educators can refine their voice for clarity, impact, and engagement—whether it’s in delivering a lecture, moderating discussions, or guiding students through their own learning journeys. Excited to dive into this! More reflections coming soon… References Scott, S.A. (1983) Assertiveness: How to stand up for yourself and still win the respect of others. California: Impact Pu […] “The Power of Our Voice in Teaching”

Elisenda Torras wrote a new post on the site All Posts

Mon, 09 Dec 2024 15:35:19 +0000

Finding My Voice: Kicking Off the PgCert JourneyThis is Elisenda, and I’m e […] “”

Elisenda Torras created the site All Posts

Mon, 09 Dec 2024 15:35:19 +0000